Ya gotta laugh. They are still sayin’ it. The homosexual activists are still claiming that there is no such thing as a slippery slope, and legalising homosexual marriage will not open the door to other sexual lifestyles being recognised and legally sanctioned.
Yeah right. We are well beyond arguing whether there will be a slippery slope. There already is one – big time. I have documented countless examples of this already. It seems that almost every day another example is revealed. The cases are mounting up, as are the various advocacy groups for these brave new sexualities.
All sorts of even “respectable” folks and organisations and opinion makers and publications are calling for the full endorsement of the various new sexual kids on the block, be they the polyamory crowd, the incest proponents, or even the bestiality campaigners. Oh, and don’t forget the object marriage rights people as well. Really!
While my next book will offer plenty of well-documented chapters examining all these slope dwellers and their very slippery slides, the new examples keep on coming. It will be hard to draw the line at where I stop so I can get the book off to the printers.
But just consider this recent case of moral madness and marriage moonbattery. Most of you would have heard how in the US a federal judge has struck down at least parts of polygamy laws in Utah. The facts of the case are recounted in this news report:
“A federal judge has found key parts of Utah’s anti-polygamy law to be unconstitutional, ruling in favor of a polygamous family known for their reality television show. While all 50 states across the nation have laws against bigamy, prohibiting people from having multiple marriage licenses, the law went further in Utah, finding a person guilty of bigamy when a married person ‘purports to marry another or cohabits with another person.’
“But Judge Clark Waddoups of the U.S. District Court in Utah ruled late Friday that the ‘cohabitation’ provision of the law was unconstitutional because it violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, which guarantee freedom of religion and the right to due process. His 91-page ruling now criminalizes plural marriages only in the literal sense, through acquisition of multiple marriage licenses.”
This decision of course has unleashed a storm of controversy – and rightly so. In many ways this is another case of social engineering through judicial activism. Utah Governor Gary Herbert for example has expressed his concern over the federal judge’s ruling:
“Herbert says while he had not had a chance to review U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups’ ruling, he’s ‘always a little concerned’ when public policy changes are made by the courts. The Republican governor told The Salt Lake Tribune he would ‘much rather see decisions on social issues’ made by the Legislature, but he still needs ‘to understand the arguments and logic’ that went into the ruling.”
And Russell Moore of the Southern Baptist Convention also expressed his deep concerns: “This is what happens when marriage becomes about the emotional and sexual wants of adults, divorced from the needs of children for a mother and a father committed to each other for life. Polygamy was outlawed in this country because it was demonstrated, again and again, to hurt women and children. Sadly, when marriage is elastic enough to mean anything, in due time it comes to mean nothing.”
Al Mohler has also weighed into this issue. After looking at a number of the legal aspects involved in the ruling, he goes on to highlight the bigger picture: “Of course, the moral revolution that has transformed marriage in our times did not start with the demand for legal same-sex marriage. It did not begin with homosexuality at all, but with the sexual libertinism that demanded (and achieved) a separation of marriage and sex, liberating sex from the confines of marriage.
“So sex was separated from marriage, and then sex was separated from the expectation of procreation and child-rearing. Marriage was separated from sex, sex was separated from reproduction, and the revolution was launched. Adding to the speed of this revolution, then, was the advent of no-fault divorce and the transformation of marriage into a tentative and often temporary contract.
“Once that damage had been done, the demand to legalize same-sex marriage could not be far behind. And now polygamy is enjoying its moment of legal liberation. Once marriage was redefined in function, it was easy to redefine it in terms of permanence. Once that was done, it was easy enough to redefine it in terms of gender. Now, with the logic of moral revolution transforming marriage in all respects, polygamy follows same-sex marriage. If marriage can be redefined in terms of gender, it can easily be redefined in terms of number.
“As legal scholar Jonathan S. Tobin has explained, ‘Waddoups’s ruling merely illustrates what follows from a legal trend in which longstanding definitions are thrown out. The inexorable logic of the end of traditional marriage laws leads us to legalized polygamy.’
“But the central issue in Judge Waddoups’s decision is consent. He simply extended the argument that virtually anything to which consenting adults agree is covered by constitutional protection—anything. As Jonathan Turley stated clearly, ‘there is no spectrum of private consensual relations.’
“And so both marriage and morality take another major blow. This one came even faster than was feared. The reverberations from this decision will be massive and far reaching. But that insight is merely, to quote Judge Waddoups, ‘to state the obvious’.”
So we have here yet another blow to the institutions of marriage and family. And all the groups pushing their radical kinky agendas have much to thank the earlier marriage destroyers: the militant homosexual lobby. All the spadework for them has been done by those pushing for homosexual marriage.
All the arguments used so nicely by them can now be used by the other sexual libertines. Whether it is “rights” talk, or shouts for “equality”, or demands for “diversity” and “acceptance,” the ground has well and truly been prepared. Indeed, the slope is steep, well-greased, and is now being regularly used by all sorts of groups.
And yet the activists still shout, “What slippery slope?”